![]() | You are viewing Log in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ: Life Entertainment Music Culture News & Politics Technology |
One morning before breakfast, Beth came to her mother all embarrassed. "I was getting ready for church," Beth said, "and I needed help tying my shoes so I went to get Father to help me. But when I found him in the bedroom, he was naked! Am I going to get in trouble for seeing him naked?"
Beth's mother frowned down at the sausage links she was frying. "The Bible has something to say about that, Dear One," she said. And this is the story she told as she finished making breakfast:
One day, Noah was making his living breeding animals and taking care of a vineyard. He drank wine and got so drunk that he lay down in his tent without any clothes on.
Noah's son Ham walked into his father's tent and saw him naked. Then he went to tell his brothers, Shem and Japheth. Shem and Japheth got some clothing and held it between them and walked backwards into their father's tent, so that they could cover him up without looking at him.
When Noah sobered up, he remembered that Ham had seen him naked. He was so mad that he cursed Ham's son, Canaan, and made him and his descendants slaves until the end of time. He blessed Shem and Japheth for their actions, and made it clear to them that Canaan was their slave forever.
"So, Beth, the Bible says that your children will be cursed because you saw your father naked," said Beth's mother.
Beth thought about this for a moment, and although the thought of her children being her brother's slaves bothered her, she smiled and hugged her mother. The story had answered all her questions.
I have a problem with people who tell their children this.
In two separate essays, social constructionist Mary McIntosh and biologicalist Richard Mohr argue their respective points. McIntosh favors the "social labeling theory," and states that by making homosexuality a label, we label them as deviants against society, and they in turn become the people they are labeled as. Mohr, on the other hand, systematically breaks down the social constructionist argument, while at the same time making an argument for their side with his gorilla example. It is quite masterful. In the case of sexual identities, I am of the biological viewpoint, or, in layman's terms, the I-was-born-this-way-and-didn't-choose-it viewpoint.
Mohr makes the statement claiming that "In higher mammals, there is no sexual behavior without sexual learning," and uses an example with captive gorillas to support his claim. The statement and its accompanying example are something that can be used as evidence both for and against sexual identity being a purely social concept.
Mohr states that gorillas that are raised in captivity get sexual urges, much the same as their wild cousins. However, because they have never observed sexual acts taking place, they must be shown how to act upon these urges. They are shown through the use of pornographic videos or "blue movies". This example argues that sexual identities are a social concept for the following reason. Gorillas are being shown videos of "normal" heterosexual acts and thus performing heterosexual acts with other gorillas. It could be argued that by showing videos of homosexual acts, the gorillas would then go and perform homosexual acts on other gorillas. If videos are the only way these acts are being taught, then it is plausible that this teaching of homosexuality could occur among gorillas.
However, there is a very simple fact we are missing here. It is plausible that this teaching of homosexuality could occur among gorillas. Humans and gorillas are not the same. Lock a boy in a box for his whole life and when he hits puberty, I am confident he will find out how to satisfy himself sexually on his own, without any help from any videos of any kind. Place a willing female in there with him and I'm sure the two of them could muddle it out together. Humans are more advanced than gorillas; we have larger brains and more areas of the brain devoted to logic and figuring things out. I'm inclined to think that even the gorillas could have figured it out on their own, but far be it from me to disagree with the findings of learned men. Furthermore, even if one could influence the gorillas into committing homosexual acts, I do not believe the same thing could occur with humans. If such acts went against the biologically ingrained sense, the human would feel uncomfortable doing them, and probably refuse to do so. Even the gorillas would probably be aware enough to know that they should be with the opposite sex, not the same one. They have instincts for these sorts of things.
I will also refute the argument that humans are animals, just like gorillas and so we aren't that different at all by agreeing and disagreeing. Yes, we are animals, no, not just like gorillas. We are more advanced. We are also more self aware, that crazy futuristic gorilla movie aside. We are more intelligent, better problem-solvers, and more evolved. We harnessed fire. We made tools. We wear clothes, solve our disputes in a court of law, and elect leaders. We are animals in the sense that we are warm-blooded, we reproduce in a similar manner, and we tend to live in groups. Biologically speaking, we are animals. Intelligently speaking, we are highly more advanced animals, therefore behavioral studies done on animals should not apply to us.
Now that I have established that gorilla studies are not proper evidence for anything relating to humans, let us move on to the next argument. What are Mohr and McIntosh really disagreeing about? As part of her argument, McIntosh interprets the Kinsey tables. One conclusion she makes is that people are more likely to declare themselves homosexual and engage in occasional heterosexual behavior than the other way around. She argues that people find it more acceptable for the so-called deviants to engage in normal behavior, than it is for normal people to engage in "deviant" behavior. This conclusion comes from the social labeling theory which states that society labels deviants from the norm, and that by labeling people as deviant, they become deviant. Mohr, on the other hand, states that the social labeling theory, while maybe true in prisons and hospitals, was not true when applied to homosexual males. He stated that three stereotypes about gay men were proven false through many studies concerning the general gay population. They were that gay men are crazy, gay men are women trapped in men's bodies, and that gay men are child molesters. Mohr states that because most gay men don't fulfill these stereotypes, even after being labeled as gay, then social labeling must not apply. I think what Mohr and McIntosh are truly disagreeing about is the existence of a social theory at all. Mohr is a biologicalist by default. He doesn't argue for biologicalism so much as he argues against social constructionism. McIntosh's arguments are all based on the social constructionist theory, so one could say they are really disagreeing about whether social theory exists at all.
I personally think that Mohr is correct and that sexual identity is a biological concept. I think one is born either gay or straight and neither chooses it, nor is influenced by social factors. They may hide it, and they may experiment with the other side, but that won't change their true nature. Look at the current fad of the "emo kid." Most of the high school males these days who declare themselves, or are classified as, "emo," also call themselves bi. It is my belief that they are mostly heterosexual males who, in hopes of attracting girls, fashion themselves as "gay." It has been my experience that a lot of girls love gay guys, so by declaring themselves "bi" these boys get the association of gay with the advantage of being allowed to sexually associate with girls. Very few girls ask for proof of a boy's "gayness" so the boy is never called out on his declaration. When pretending to be gay/bi no longer sufficiently attracts the female sex, the male will revert to his true heterosexual nature, and progress on to the next method of attracting a mate. I would believe that this manner of pretending is the only way in which sexual identities are socially influenced, and it is not the identities here which are changing, but rather they appear to change to suit the individual's needs.
That being said, McIntosh's arguments make much more sense to me than Mohr's do. I find social labeling easier to understand, and it's very obvious that homosexuality is considered a deviant behavior, whether we are born with it or not. While I know society doesn't determine sexual identity, it certainly determines one's willingness to admit their sexual identity, and that is important in the argument as well.